Women in the Early Soviet Union

In Russia's past many peasants had claimed the right to beat their wives, with one proverb saying "The more you beat the old women, the tastier the soup will be." However, when the Soviet Union formed in Russia after the failure of its Provisional government, the new Communist state was to make changes to the position of women in its society.

Alexandra Kollontai, a Marxist who was a committed Bolshevist dominated what was known as 'the woman question.' One of her beliefs was that women should be independent and work outside of the home should be a large part of a woman's life. According to Kollontai, capitalism at the time oppressed women with the burden of both housework and work outside of the home. Lenin agreed with Kollontai and saw the traditional bourgeois marriage as a form of slavery. 

The People's Commissar for Social Welfare passed laws which would create a change in the position of women in society, lessening their importance as merely homemakers but also those who are able to work. For women who were pregnant there became guaranteed paid maternity leave for two months before and after the birth. Mothers with young babies were also allowed shorter hours and allowed time to specifically look after their babies. A commission was also set up to protect mothers and infants that made plans for maternity clinics, milk points and nurseries. These changes showed that the Communist state was attempting to make it easier for women to work rather than be merely homemakers. 

Working Women in the Soviet Union

Also to create a change in women's role in the home, change needed to be made to the bourgeois constraints of marriage. A new divorce law was passed that stated that either the husband or the wife could terminate a marriage on their own grounds. This made divorce much easier that it had been previously and the hope was that this would provide women with more freedom in their lives. However this Communist dream did not work quite as well in reality. By the mid-1920's, the USSR had the highest divorce rate in Europe, approximately 25 times higher than in Britain. It did not work in reality as it left women in a state arguably worse than prior to the changes of divorce laws. Now, women were easily left by their husbands, with many of the women being left pregnant, and many men and women reportedly marrying up to 15 times. In 1927, surveys showed that almost two-thirds of marriage at the time ended in divorce. 

As well as changes to divorce laws in the effort of changing women's status, there was also changes to abortion laws. A law was passed that allowed abortion to be performed under medical supervision and the USSR was in fact the first country to legalise abortion on demand. This is a huge change to the previous Tsarist Russia's image of 'backwardness.' This law was passed in the hope that women would be able to focus more on working rather than the traditional role of women. By the early 1930's there was around 1.5 million abortions per year. In 1931 abortions massively exceeded births with there being 21.3 births per thousand of the population and 36.3 abortions per thousand of the population. 

However in the 1930's the Soviet Union may have realised that although for many good, their ideas for women were possibly at the time, far reaching. The 1930's saw a retreat to the old Russian family values. The Soviet state had realised that their previous policies had radical impacts that could not be dealt with at the time. Changes were made that only allowed abortion if there was a threat to a woman's life and divorce was made harder, with the fee for divorce being raised to 50 roubles for the first divorce, 150 for the second and 300 roubles for any subsequent divorces. 

Although the policies made by the USSR in favour of women's status are accepted in much of today's Western society it appears that at the time they were policies that were far-reaching. Many women in the Soviet Union saw an improvement in their status, but the USSR was not quite ready for its desired radical change.

THIS BLOG claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

History: A Story of Progress?

After attending a History taster course at SOAS recently, the lecturer, Angus Lockyer, raised the question that is an incredibly common question for those studying history to ask. Is History a story of progress? My opinion? No.

Those who see history as a story of progress can be seen as 'whiggish.' The term 'whiggish' or 'whig' comes from those in Britain that had supported a move away from the power of the monarchy  to the power of parliament and constitutional monarchy. They saw that an achievement of constitutional monarchy allowed British subjects political liberties and so therefore it was progress. However this is easily questioned. Why is parliamentary democracy seen as progress? For a whig to see this as progress is merely an assumption. The term 'whig' refers now to those who jump to the idea of constant progress in history. What we first need to ask ourselves is this, what do we mean by progress?

The definition of progress is "forward or onward movement towards a destination or goal." So to say History is a story of progress implies that there is a certain goal that humanity needs to reach by progressing.  There are certain ideals that most people see as progress, such as equality, freedom, advances in socio-economic statuses and technology. All this should be progress, however it is undeniable that the idea of progress is very much subjective. For example, extremist islamists may see progress as spreading Shari'ah law to other parts of the globe. Of course for most parts of the globe, this would be regression, as it would be a turn back on the positive change that has been made in society such as women suffrage in the world. Therefore, although there are ideas of what is progress that are ideal for all of society, the definition of progress is quite subjective and therefore the question cannot be answered identically for all. Progress in one persons view may not be progress for another.

Thomas MacCauley, writer of A History of England, adopts a rather whiggish view of History. MacCauley says that "the national wealth, during at least six centuries, [has] been almost uninterruptedly increasing" and we have "been exempt from evils which have elsewhere impeded the efforts." MacCauley takes this to be progress. He identifies the idea of progressive change throughout history that begins at the signing of the Magna Carta and the Revolution of 1688. Both of these movements reduced the power of the kings somewhat. He sees that the changes that have occurred in Britain in its history have mostly had a positive affect on Britain's progress. However, a huge flaw in MacCauley's argument is that he focuses on the history of Britain. A parallel idea of progressive change cannot be seen all over the world. For instance Burma, after it was annexed by the British actually saw what can be deemed as a regression in 1885. Removal of it's monarch, Thibaw, can be said to have destroyed the countries rice industries and  created political disarray that is still partly present today. Reduction of the power of a monarch in the case of Burma did not create any progress for Burma, against whiggish beliefs. Therefore it is difficult to say that history is a story of progress as this quite obviously does not wholly apply.

On account of what has been discussed, I hold the view that History is not a story of progress. Yes, positive change can be seen throughout the world, changes that should be seen as progress, such as the abolition of the slave trade. However the idea of progress is not universally held, that for many history is not a story of progress. Also, progress can be seen in the history of countries such as Britain, however the same idea cannot be said for other countries, such as Burma, that appear to have regressed over the years (if an assumption of the idea of progress is to be made.)If a jump to the facts is made, History is a story of progress. But if History is correctly analysed, as a whole, it is not a story of progress.

The Birth of Britain in Australia -1788

Around 1766, it was suggested that Britain should exploit Australia and its surrounding regions for its riches. Only after the loss of American colonies did it become a serious plan for the British, who now wanted to find alternative land to settle a new British colony. Australia was chosen to settle this new British colony, beginning in 1788. The plan was to send convicts, mainly those convicted of trivial crimes, but convicts who were skilled in a trade that would be useful in building up the infrastructure and new life of the colony.
It is a common misconception to believe that the colonization of Australia by sending British convicts was because of the overcrowding of the British prison system or as a severe punishment for their crimes. In fact, the British were at first reluctant to enslave the current Australian inhabitants,the Aborigines, and so sent convicts to help build the new colony. Before convicts fully completed their sentences they were sent to help colonise in exchange for their pardon, and were allocated a piece of land to work on in Australia.


On 13 May 1787, the First Fleet that would establish the British colony in Australia, left Portsmouth and set sail for Botany Bay. It consisted of 11 ships and approximately 1530 people, 736 of which were convicts.They eventually decided to place their settlement at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788. This day is now known as Australia's National Day. The settlement was named after the British Home Secretary, Viscount Sydney.

Governor Phillip, who had been under command of the initial sail to Australia had complete authority of the new inhabitants of the colony.Phillips aimed to created harmonious relations with the prior inhabitants of Australia, while also reform the convicts of the new colony. The punishments for those convicts who disobeyed were harsh, with discipline including the likes of flogging (which involved lashes) or confinement.

Convicts were assigned to those settlers that had arrived in Australia free. In return for allowing the convicts to work for them and providing them with food, the land was given to the free settlers free of expense. Female convicts were given work as well with many going into domestic service for the soldiers or marines that had also travelled to colonise Australia. Many of the female convicts were also forced into prostitution alongside domestic service.However few of the first arriving convicts actually had the necessary skills required for colonization, making colonization only more difficult. Convicts that finished their sentence normally remained as settlers, taking upon convicts onto their own land.


Life for the new colonial inhabitants was difficult. The lack of understanding of Australia's seasons meant the initial attempts of farming and agricultural works failed. Many of the new convicts arrived in unhealthy states, but their health deteriorated only further due to the lack of sufficient sustenance and from the hard labour on the settlements. Supplies from overseas were low and so starting up agriculture was difficult. However the ships began to arrive more frequently to the Australian shores, reducing the huge isolating feeling that the inhabitants had. These ships brought supplies and improved conditions. In 1789, a former convict, James Ruse managed to successfully produce a wheat harvest. This was followed by many other successful harvests by other inhabitants and soon the colony was growing a sufficient amount of food for itself.

This was only the beginning of British Australian history. The British would go on to explore further into the regions of Australia and there would be future rebellions among the new inhabitants and the initial occupiers of Australia, the Aborigines. There would also be great injustice towards the Aborigines. Nonetheless it can be seen that the colonizing of the British in Australia gave birth to the Australia we now know today.

THIS BLOG claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.